Re: standby redologs ?!!
From: Prem <premj_at_rediffmail.com>
Date: 27 Sep 2011 06:29:10 -0000
Message-ID: <1317007951.S.5027.6698.F.H.TlpoYW5nTGV5aShLYW11cykAUmU6IHN0YW5kYnkgcmVkb2xvZ3MgPyEh.f4-234-196.1317104950.8355_at_webmail.rediffmail.com>
Thanks Maureen , Yong and Kamus . Your replies helped . I can think of contention for redo log switch (while db peak hours) on primary but not on standby .If the primary (with all the load) is fine with the no. of redo logs - obviously standby (with less load) should be fine too . I could not think of a good (strong) reason for oracle recommending so . Hope oracle wants us to avoid even the least possibility of getting stuck.
Date: 27 Sep 2011 06:29:10 -0000
Message-ID: <1317007951.S.5027.6698.F.H.TlpoYW5nTGV5aShLYW11cykAUmU6IHN0YW5kYnkgcmVkb2xvZ3MgPyEh.f4-234-196.1317104950.8355_at_webmail.rediffmail.com>
Thanks Maureen , Yong and Kamus . Your replies helped . I can think of contention for redo log switch (while db peak hours) on primary but not on standby .If the primary (with all the load) is fine with the no. of redo logs - obviously standby (with less load) should be fine too . I could not think of a good (strong) reason for oracle recommending so . Hope oracle wants us to avoid even the least possibility of getting stuck.
I just wanted to make sure that I am not missing any good reason for having these extra SRL group . Anyway - thanks everyone.
Regards,
~ JP ~
-- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-lReceived on Tue Sep 27 2011 - 01:29:10 CDT